5.  The applicant lives in St Oswald.
6.  The applicant is a medical practitioner. He has an individual contract (Einzelvertrag) with the Lower Austrian Health Insurance Board (Niederösterreichische Gebietskrankenkasse).
7.  In two submissions to the Joint Arbitration Committee (Paritätische Schiedskommission) dated 7 September 1998 and 5 October 1998, the applicant demanded payment for laboratory tests carried out in the first and second quarters of 1998. The claims against the Lower Austrian Health Insurance Board amounted to 8,022.41 euros (EUR) and EUR 6,603.81, respectively.
8.  The Lower Austrian Health Insurance Board claimed that the applicant had not participated in the test series for quality checking of laboratory parameters in 1997, and refused to pay for the tests.
9.  The applicant argued that he had participated in the quality checks in previous years with positive results and had – as previously – submitted the relevant samples for the period in question.
10.  The Joint Arbitration Committee held an oral hearing and on 25 February 1999 it dismissed the applicant’s claim of 7 September 1998.
11.  The applicant appealed against that decision to the Regional Appeals Commission (Landesberufungskommission).
12.  On 17 May 1999 the applicant filed an application for transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag), requesting a decision on his submission of 5 October 1998 from the Regional Appeals Commission, as the Joint Arbitration Committee had failed to decide within the statutory six-month time-limit.
13.  The Regional Appeals Commission held a hearing and rejected both of the applicant’s claims. The decision was dated 24 August 1999, and was served on the applicant on 7 July 2000.
14.  The applicant complained about this decision to the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). On 27 November 2000 the Constitutional Court set aside the decision for violation of the right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. It noted that one of the assessors of the Regional Appeals Commission had negotiated the clause on remuneration for laboratory tests on behalf of the Lower Austrian Medical Association (Ärztekammer für Niederösterreich), and thus the tribunal could not be regarded as impartial and/or independent.
15.  An amendment to the Social Insurance Act (Allgemeines Sozialversicherungsgesetz) entered into force on 1 September 2002; it provided for changes in the composition of, inter alia, the Regional Appeals Commission.
16.  The newly composed Regional Appeals Commission held a hearing on 15 May 2002, during which the applicant gave evidence.
17.  On 24 March 2003 the applicant requested that the decision be served on him. As the Regional Appeals Commission did not react, the applicant repeated his demand on 18 July 2003.
18.  The applicant was summoned to another hearing by a newly composed Regional Appeals Commission on 26 November 2003. During that hearing the entire subject was examined anew. Apparently the Regional Appeals Commission reached a decision on the same day. It dismissed the applicant’s claims, finding that he had failed to participate in the required tests and had therefore not complied with the conditions for payment of the laboratory tests. The Regional Appeals Commission did not find any reasons to doubt the lawfulness of the underlying provision of the Remuneration Regulation (Honorarordnung). The decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 30 November 2004.
19.  On 15 December 2004 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court claiming that the Regional Appeals Commission lacked independence and impartiality. The former rejected the applicant’s complaint in a decision of 27 September 2005. It observed that the members of the Regional Appeals Commission were not bound by any instructions. They were independent and impartial unless special circumstances, for instance the fact that one member of the Regional Appeals Commission had been involved in the negotiation of the general agreements, gave rise to legitimate doubts about that member’s independence and impartiality. Such special circumstances had not been shown by the applicant in the present case. The mere fact that the assessors were members of Regional Medial Associations or Regional Health Insurance Boards which had provisions with the same content in their general agreements, did not suffice to cast doubt on the independence and impartiality of the Regional Appeals Commission. The decision was served on counsel on 29 November 2005.